Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ Wolfstan: I'm missing your point apparently. My point is that the United States is built on a Judeo-Christian tradition and that if you removed that tradition, including its off-shots like humanism, then you would have a moral void. Anicent civilizations certainly had their own ways of defining morality and they absolutely worked for them. I never claimed that Judeo-Christian tradition is the foundation of all civilization. I said that for the last 1500 years, it has defined Western Civilization (so from about 500 A.D. onwards).

Ooops, sorry, my bad!

PanzerLeader wrote:My point is that the United States is built on a Judeo-Christian tradition and that if you removed that tradition, including its off-shots like humanism, then you would have a moral void.

That is both highly doubtful and unknowable. If you removed Judeo-Christian tradition you would not create a moral void, you would just have something different that would be either somewhat similiar or radically different. As already pointed out there were morals and ethics before Christianity, during the formation, and in places without it. Western Civilization would be different, but the idea that it would not suddenly lose morals because an outside influence isn't introduced seems a bit specious.

Ahtman wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:My point is that the United States is built on a Judeo-Christian tradition and that if you removed that tradition, including its off-shots like humanism, then you would have a moral void.

That is both highly doubtful and unknowable. If you removed Judeo-Christian tradition you would not create a moral void, you would just have something different that would be either somewhat similiar or radically different. As already pointed out there were morals and ethics before Christianity, during the formation, and in places without it. Western Civilization would be different, but the idea that it would not suddenly lose morals because an outside influence isn't introduced seems a bit specious.

Unknowable? Probably. But you are now making the assumption of an alternative social evolution. I can accept that logically in the development of western civilization, if Jesus' movement had died with him then Western civilization would be fundamentally different. No issues there. However, if you removed the Judeo-Christian values from the contemporary United States, there would absolutely be a moral void. The entire country is steeped in the Judeo-Christian ethic, from the Golden Rule to the Ten Commandments to our sometimes absurd rules governing bedroom behavior (even my tiny homestate of N.H. has a $1,200 fine for commiting adultery). If you were to suddenly invalidate the Judeo-Christian tradition and declare all its tangible products (i.e. codes of law, philosophies, etc.) null and void, I can say with fair certainty that there would be a moral void that would not be easily filled.

@ PAnzer leader: I think dogma's point was that the tradition is far more ingrained than the theology. The point being, we could all stop going to church or believing in the divinity of jesus, but it wouldn't much change the moral structure of the US.

Polonius wrote:@ PAnzer leader: I think dogma's point was that the tradition is far more ingrained than the theology. The point being, we could all stop going to church or believing in the divinity of jesus, but it wouldn't much change the moral structure of the US.

In that case, I agree with him.

This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

Speaking of Oklahoma, who's actually been there and seen the tree?

Deadshane1 wrote:Speaking of Oklahoma, who's actually been there and seen the tree?

Which tree?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/oklahoma.abortion/index.html

This is insane. How long till the bombs under the car of a young woman getting an abortion after rape?

Disgusting invasion of privacy and rights.

I'm no fan of abortion and even I find this ridiculous.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

You are, I believe, the first person that's actually realized that and posted it.

The problem is that the questions are so specific as to make Identification trivially easy in some cases. While it would probably not be an "undue burden" under Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it might still violate medical privacy laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_v_Planned_Parenthood

Polonius wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

You are, I believe, the first person that's actually realized that and posted it.

The problem is that the questions are so specific as to make Identification trivially easy in some cases. While it would probably not be an "undue burden" under Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it might still violate medical privacy laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_v_Planned_Parenthood

I hate sensationalizing things. Once it's gone through the cycle a few times it gets a little ridiculous. If I made a thread based off this thread based off the article probably based off another article based off a possible law, it would likely read "Oklahoma to destroy women's right forevar!!111" I can see the parallel, but I think it's a little different still. On top of that, the data might be a little useful (though I'd guess not enough to waste the money). Maybe they could learn to tell people to have safe sex in PSAs or some other piece of common sense

FAIL XD.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This thread title and the article contents are radically different. Waste of money? Yes. Invasion of privacy? As much as a census survey.

Not so.

A census survey seeks to cover everyone. This specifically seeks to cover only women who want an abortion. It's blatantly sexist discrimination right at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is perfectly obvious that whatever flim-flammery the proponents of this idea might wish to use to disguise it, the core intent is to frighten women off having an abortion.

A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

This proposal fails on three different legal grounds and people should be ashamed for the waste of tax-payers money involved in promoting it.

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

The one thing to always keep in mind with Abortion and privacy rights is that it's really only private if you completely discount the fetus as worthy of state notice. Meaning, you can't beat your wife in private, and you can't kill your children in private. Abortion is only considered private because we don't consider the fetus as a party. That still only goes so far, and we realize that there still are some state interests in the fetus.

It's very, very complex.

Frazzled wrote:Yes its important to make fun of Oklahoma. I am sure your locales are all suitably enlightened.

I mean Western Europe is much more enlightened, like how Muslim womeon are not allowed to wear headscarves and the BNP is rising, and inversely, Danish playwrights are killed. Yep much more enlightened.

But back to feeling superior. Those wacky Oklahomans...

Well... Europe was ok until they let the <....> in...

yeah... nice flamebait.... quit it.

Polonius wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

The one thing to always keep in mind with Abortion and privacy rights is that it's really only private if you completely discount the fetus as worthy of state notice. Meaning, you can't beat your wife in private, and you can't kill your children in private. Abortion is only considered private because we don't consider the fetus as a party. That still only goes so far, and we realize that there still are some state interests in the fetus.

It's very, very complex.

Especially since even if the state isn't directly interested it may have to mediate between the rights of the mother and the father.

But I'm not sure this extensive questioning is really helping out the fetus. It seems like more of a hamfisted attempt to scare people away.

Well, not to sound like a jackass, but wouldn't scaring people away from abortions help out the fetus?

Alright, that's fair.

I suppose I should have said it was less helpful to the fetus than many other things they could be doing, or not nearly helpful enough to justify the harm it may cause the mother. Relying on fear of the medical procedure to reduce the number of abortions really isn't the way to go, after all.

Howlingmoon wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Yes its important to make fun of Oklahoma. I am sure your locales are all suitably enlightened.

I mean Western Europe is much more enlightened, like how Muslim womeon are not allowed to wear headscarves and the BNP is rising, and inversely, Danish playwrights are killed. Yep much more enlightened.

But back to feeling superior. Those wacky Oklahomans...

Well... Europe was ok until they let the <....> in...

yeah... nice flamebait.... quit it.

Make me.

Polonius wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A 35-page form? America is supposed to be a country which hates government and interference in private lives.

Yeah, we're not that good at it...

The one thing to always keep in mind with Abortion and privacy rights is that it's really only private if you completely discount the fetus as worthy of state notice. Meaning, you can't beat your wife in private, and you can't kill your children in private. Abortion is only considered private because we don't consider the fetus as a party. That still only goes so far, and we realize that there still are some state interests in the fetus.

It's very, very complex.

As the law stands the foetus and the father do not have rights. The form can't have any value in informing the state's role in adjudicating rights if none exist.

The state only has an interest when abortion is proposed after the legal time limit, to ensure that it is done legally (e.g. for genuine medical necessity.) That system has been operating without a serious hitch for 35 years, which suggests that it doesn't really need modification.

If the state wants to take notice of something it currently has no jurisdiction over, it should first seek to establish a basis for getting jurisdiction.

This brings us back to the realisation that the point of the form is to scare women off abortion.

Thats not accurate in the US. The state has compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus at viability. Thats been old English Common Law and current US judge made law (via SCOTUS). The tricky part is defining viability. With increasing technology that gets shifted further and further back.

Yeah, can't just go around offing potential tax payers...

I sense a lock coming.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not accurate in the US. The state has compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus at viability. Thats been old English Common Law and current US judge made law (via SCOTUS). The tricky part is defining viability. With increasing technology that gets shifted further and further back.

The records of care of premature babies show that the absolute limit of viability stands at about 21 weeks. Premature babies born at that age need extensive, prolonged medical intervention and frequently suffer ill effects in later life. It has taken about 40 years of medical advance to get from 24 weeks down to 21. Younger babies simply are not viable, without some kind of artificial womb being invented.

As mentioned earlier, about 98% of abortions take place before 24 weeks, and over 80% in the first 12 weeks.

If i was a woman and they tried to force me into having a baby i would have it and then smash my local senators car window and leave it in the bastards back seat.

agnosto wrote:Yeah, can't just go around offing potential tax payers...

WIN!

Really though, the "questionaire" is stupid. I don't think abortion should be abused as a form of birth control, but at the same time, some couples and/or potential mothers simply aren't ready or capable of raising a family. It's stupid to guilt women into motherhood when they have the perfectly legal option of an abortion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quoted from the article:

"Naturally, the abortion industry wants to block this, because they know the more information the mom has, the less likely she is to abort her baby,"

What is this shadowy "abortion industry?" Like, is there a council of execs who sit around thinking up new ways to promote the abortion lifestyle? This sounds a little scare-tact-ular to me. Abortion should never be taken lightly, I've been through a couple with my significant other and it is hell. I don't see any sign of an "industry" trying to push people into abortions. The pro-choice lobby simply has to be as crazy and zealous as the pro-lifers in order to stand a chance.

If abortion is legal, then Oklahoma only needs to gather information to find out if abortions are increasing / decreasing / staying static, education (are certain social groups more prone?) and say, age (similar reason to education). Name & address opens it all up to abuse by the nutters.

Kilkrazy wrote:
As mentioned earlier, about 98% of abortions take place before 24 weeks, and over 80% in the first 12 weeks.

Here ya go....pictures of 23 nd 12 week old babies. Have fun!

http://www.aboutabortions.com/EmbFetal.htm
edit: found some more http://www.babycenter.com/100_fetal-development_5214615.bc

You can't look at those pictures and tell me you really believe abortion is not murder.



GG